"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1154154539.821647.101160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1154120465.403672.109310@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1154102960.807291.161670@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:gtlyg.4031$gF6.2109@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News w6ydnaAJFIVnDVTZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com,,
youngopinions@aol.com at youngopinions@aol.com, typed this:

It's this 'in-your-face' attitude that gays possess

Yeah, how dare they demand equal rights.

Correct. How dare they demand equal protections based on an unequal
entity/unequal relationship.

That is why they are demanding equal protections based on an equal
entity/equal relationship.

Equal to what?

Equal to the relationships that currently have more rights than theirs.

More rights you say.

Yes. Heterosexual couples have more rights than homosexual couples
because heterosexual couples have the right to get married.

Again, you are blinded by entities of two persons and it causes you to
discriminate against single persons.

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1154154539.821647.101160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1154120465.403672.109310@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1154102960.807291.161670@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:gtlyg.4031$gF6.2109@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News w6ydnaAJFIVnDVTZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com,,
youngopinions@aol.com at youngopinions@aol.com, typed this:

It's this 'in-your-face' attitude that gays possess

Yeah, how dare they demand equal rights.

Correct.
How dare they demand equal protections based on an unequal
entity/unequal
relationship.

That is why they are demanding equal protections based on an equal
entity/equal relationship.

Equal to what?

Equal to the relationships that currently have more rights than theirs.

More rights you say.

Yes. Heterosexual couples have more rights than homosexual couples
because heterosexual couples have the right to get married.

Again, you are blinded by entities of two persons and it causes you to
discriminate against single persons.

Thank you for showing that there are unequal protections on the basis of
marital status.

There aren't any such rights.

False statement.

It is unequal rights based on sexual
orientation.

Wrong. If gays would learn to stop using that line, they coudl attain some
of what they are seeking easier.

You have never been able to come up with any unequal
rights based on marital status.

*****.

Check the tax tables.

Check insurance rates.

Check spousal rates.

You are lobbying to exacerbate the already unequal protections in society.

Now, your task is to level the playign field so that there is no unequal
protection or privlege on the basis of martial status.

Done. That is what already exists.

If that were so the gays would not need gay marriage.

You have never shown what any such
inequality exists.

You are a liar.

The Constitution is NOT written for entities of two at a time.

Never claimed that it was.

But, you act as if it is.

That is your strawman.

My 'strawman' is legitimate.

It is written for individual rights.

Which include the rights of married persons.

As individuals. It isn't written to grant protections and privileges above
other individuals in the USA.

Married persons are individuals.
There is no Constitutional authority to grant unto married persons,
individually or separately, unequal protections or privileges above or less
than other members of the USA.

You have never shown that
there are any unequal rights conferred by marital status.

Your ignorance and lies are against you.

Two persons of the same gender is not equal to two persons of
differing genders.

However, a homosexual couples is, or should be, equal to a heterosexual
couple and both should have the same rights.

Yours is a ***** which disciminates against every single person in the
USA.

Meaning that I discriminate against myself, according to you.

If you are single you do.

Sorry, but you have yet to support your strawman by proving that unequal
rights due to marital status actually exists.

I already showed you many times.

The difference is so simplistic, if you can not see it, you are quite
blind.

There is no difference.

You are blind then.

And I see far better than you do.

Wrong.

That is the point.

Your blindness is a shame.

You and my sight is orders of magnitude clearer than yours is.

Error.

Your bigotry is what is
blinding you.

I am not a bigot by lobbying for equal protections for all persons.

You are not lobbying for equal rights for all people, however.

Wrong. That is your problem.

You continue to want to deny homosexuals the right to marry, as you have
just proven.

You are confused.

The people do not want same-sex marriage being legal.

I can see just fine.

You are mentally blind.

Nope. I am mentally very clear sighted and I can see better than you
the truth and the facts.

Error.

Your words prove you to be mentally blind and an ally of criminals.

My words prove that I am mentally clear sighted and that I am the ally
of honest and hard working people.

False. You are lobbying for heavier burdens upon single persons.

Your are describing yourself, not me.

False.

They want a homosexual couple to have the
same rights as a heterosexual couple, including the right to get
married.

I understand.

I doubt it.

You are a doubter.

Very well. I know for a fact that that you do not understand.

I understand. You do nothing more than resist the Constitutional requirement
in this.

I guess you are afraid that gays won;' get special treatment if they marry
if the 14th Amendment is used to destroy the already unequal protections
provided by marriage.

But, spousal status is no reason to create unequal treatments
from citizen to citizen in the USA.

It doesn't.

"Equal to the relationships that currently have more rights than theirs."
You are quite contradictory.

Not at all.
Homosexuals are being denied rights that heterosexuals
have an enjoy and take for granted. Therefore, homosexuals are getting
unequal rights with respect to heterosexuals. The unequal rights is
based on sexual orientation, NOT spousal status. You have never shown
that any unequal rights exist due to marital status, which is your
contention.

Why are you bitching about that if they are already treated equally?

If you think that singles are already treated equally to married persons,

which you espouse frequently, then why do you continue to complain that gays
can not marry?

The Constitution's amendments are written for individual rights.

And that is what we are talking about, an individual's right to marry
the consenting unrelated adult of his or her choice without regard for
the gender of the choice.

The right to marry the consenting non-related adult of your choice is NOT
a Constitutional right.

Since it is a fundamental right according to the courts, it is a
Constitutional right.

Are you relying on OPINION again?

It comes under the 9th Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Which basically means that the Constitution does not spell out all the
rights that the people have.

So, according that, it is ok for heterosexuals to marry.

Next, look at the 14th Amendment, and notice that unequal protections are
not allowed in the USA.

Eliminate the unequal protections created by marriage and the situation is
solved.

People like you are enemies of so many persons in the USA.

Your agendas are not geared to serve every person in the USA.

Your agenda is inferior, by a long shot, to mine and the Constitution's.

You are too slow in delivering equality,

and that is because you are
focused only on gays and abortionists.

You discriminate on the basis of whether a person is pro-choice or gay.

When will you learn what equal protection and equal privileges mean?

Over 30 years ago.

How old were you then?

12 years old. Maybe younger. It was in grade school social studies.

You're in your forties now?

I thought you told me you were in your thirties not long ago.

(>30+12)>42.

When will YOU learn what it actually means?

I do know what it means.

Not that you have ever demonstrated.

It does NOT mean what some opnionated numbskulls on
the Court opined.

It also does not mean what some opinionated numbskull named Johnny
Wentsky that posts to alt.abortion says it means either.

I am not going with OPINION, idiot.

I am going with the language of the Constitution.

The courts are a better source for the meaning of a portion of the law
or the Constitution that you will ever be.

Absolutely false.

The Constitution is the only authority in Constitutional matters.

The opionions are irrelevant.

It is their job to know the law and its meaning throughly. Just because
you disagree with their
interpretation does not make you right and them wrong. You need to
support your position with something more substantial and authoritative
than your ill-informed opinion.

The Constitution is what supports my position.

And, if you notice it is only the opinions that are in disagreement with me
and the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment means what it means.

But not what you claim it means.

It means what it says.

It does not mean what some opinions say it means.

It does not mean anything more.

It does, however, mean something different that what you claim.

*****.
Read the 14th Amendment.

I have yet to see you understand the concept.

I understand everything you type.

You sure don't act like it.

I understand what you type.

Your stance is counter to the 14th Amendment.

I also understand that your agenda is very ineffective at fulfilling the
14th Amendment.

It is better at it than yours,

Wrong.

since you want to prevent groups of
people from having equal rights.

Wrong.

You do not use any definition
that I have ever seen before, at least from what I can tell from your
writings. Your definition is entirely your own.